William Fuhgeh v. Ottawa Police Services Board and Francois Perron, 2013 HRTO 296

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Fuhgeh Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board and Francois Perron Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: February 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 296 Indexed as: Fuhgeh v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

William Fuhgeh, Applicant Self-represented

Ottawa Police Services Board and Francois Perron, Respondents David Patacairk, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin.

2On December 12, 2012 the processing of the Application was deferred by the Tribunal until the conclusion of the applicant’s ongoing provincial offences proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice which seeks to overturn the fine levied upon the applicant as a result of his alleged speeding. See Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2330.

3The purpose of the present Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings filed on December 17, 2012, seeking re-activation of the Application. The respondents took no position on the requested order.

4The applicant submits that the re-activation of the Application is warranted because on December 17, 2012 the Court granted an adjournment of the provincial offences proceeding “to be spoken to” on April 25, 2013, pending the applicant’s human rights proceeding.

5It appears that the applicant failed to advise the Court of the original Interim Decision. It would seem, in essence, the applicant is now attempting to re-litigate the original Interim Decision to defer the Application which was made prior to the Court of Justice adjournment.

6The reasons for the deferral are set out in the original Interim Decision and those reasons continue to be germane. A decision to defer consideration of the Application until “after the provincial offences proceeding has concluded” has already been made by the Tribunal and it will not be reversed.

order

7The Request to re-activate the Application is denied.

8I am not seized.